1951-02-07

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? According to the press, it has been suggested in London that the diplomatic status of commonwealth high commissioners is likely to be altered. Would the Prime Minister care to indicate to the house whether this matter was under discussion at the recent commonwealth prime ministers' conference? If so, have any arrangements of the kind been made?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The question was not raised at
the recent meeting in London.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the government consider the setting up, at this session, of a special committee, similar to last year's committee on old age security, to study and report on the whole question of health insurance for the Canadian people?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: It is not the intention of the government to recommend the setting up of such a committee at the present time.



PULPWOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I
desire to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. This is not a question about reefer cars, but it is not unrelated to that subject. In connection with what is practically a new industry in Prince Edward Island, namely, the exporting of pulpwood,
I have been informed by shippers from Kings county that there is a large quantity of pulpwood cut, ready and awaiting shipment. While the Prince Edward Island Railway, through the superintendent and the divisional freight agent, is endeavouring to assist shippers in the export of pulpwood, there is a considerable shortage of box cars. Will the Minister of Transport endeavour to assist the divisional freight agent at Charlottetown in getting a satisfactory number of box cars for the shipment of pulpwood from Prince Edward Island to the mainland?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I shall be glad to look into the matter.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. McMillan for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, last night at the adjournment I was attempting to show the effects of decontrol- or a few of them-on the farming population of this country. I should like now to point out briefly some of the effects on the general consuming public and the industrial population. I can give only a few illustrations, because my time is limited and I am sure there are other speakers who will be pleased to give fuller information.
By way of illustration, taking the cost of living index in September of 1939 at 100-8, in February of 1946, when decontrol began, it was 119 -9. At the present time, according to the latest figures, it is 172-5. This indicates a continuous rise. Since last June there has been a rise in the cost of living of about seven points.
Not only do we in this group believe that that increase in the cost of living is raised by, shall I say, the greed of certain corporations in this country, but it is also stimulated to a certain extent by some of the remarks made by ministers in connection with the possibility of imposing price control. We all know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) have on occasions expressed the belief that price controls may be necessary,
156	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge although not at the present time. I believe that has caused many firms to increase their prices, because they are afraid that, at some time in the future, price controls will be put into effect.
I think this is indicated by the resolution passed by the Canadian Consumers Association and addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I shall quote only one part of it, because it indicates that they, who represent consumers in this country, believe that ministerial statements had some effect. Their resolution states in part:
Whereas the C.A.C. feels that many prices have been advanced in anticipation of the imposition of price controls, rather than because of necessity . . .
I believe that feeling has been developed. I believe it is safe to say also that prices have increased rapidly, particularly since the beginning of the fighting in Korea, because of the greed of certain corporations, and because of certain ministerial statements. While prices have continued to rise, profits have continued to soar. We in this group have said that if decontrol became effective, without doubt corporations in this country would take increasing profits. That is exactly what they have done.
For instance, the total corporate profit, after taxes, for all companies in Canada rose from $468 million in 1939 to $751 million in 1946. That was during a period of high production and of price controls. After the war, profits rose in 1949 to $1,241 million.
To illustrate the validity of our argument I should like to place on record figures showing the profits of a few of the major corporations in Canada. These are net profits after taxes for several Canadian companies:
Name of Company Aluminum Company of	Net profits after taxes, 1946	Net profits after taxes, 1950
Canada 			$24,485,448
Imperial Oil Limited 	 Dominion Steel & Coal	.. 17,326,112	23,932,986
Corporation 			5,252,063
Canada Packers Limited .	.. 1,816,781	3,480,212
Dominion Textile Company 2,119,770 Loblaw Groceterias		3,108,995
Company 			2,185,915
Zellers Limited 		374,043	1,169,552
B.C. Packers			1,078,781
I would draw particular attention to the figures for the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation.
The table I have placed on record is a clear indication of the relationship of decontrol, rising prices and soaring profits. The source of the figures for 1946 is the Financial Post survey of corporate securities for 1947; those for 1950 are from issues of the Financial Post from April 22, 1950 to September 2, 1950.


The record of profits clearly indicates the soundness of the argument that has been put forward throughout the years by members of this group. What has been the position of the C.C.F. in that time? For the sake of my good friends to my right and my friends immediately opposite, who are listening to me with considerable interest, I should like to make this point clear. Price controls, and the necessary subsidies, do not constitute socialism. They are an attempt, under capitalism, consciously to regulate the system so that it will work for the greater advantage of the greater number. There is nothing very frightening about that, and nothing radical about it. It is just an attempt to bring order out of chaos and to bring stability to our financial and economic system, so that the people of this country will have a cost of living that is reasonably stable, and so that we shall have a wage structure that is necessarily more stable because of that price structure.
Since decontrol the C.C.F. have advocated continuously the reimposition of certain controls and subsidies. We offered amendments in the house in 1946,1947,1948,1949, and 1950. Accompanying those amendments from this group were urgent requests that the government recognize the rising cost of living and do something about it by reimposing price controls and, where necessary, providing for subsidies. Even as late as September 2 of last year the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of this group, in his speech in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, moved an amendment protesting against the failure of the government to impose price controls and subsidies. That amendment, even after prices had risen to the height they had reached last fall, was defeated by a vote of 93 to 18, the C.C.F. being supported only by members of the Social Credit party.
We have always maintained that the removal of controls would mean the skyrocketing of prices, and that it would make it more difficult for Canadians to meet household requirements and maintain themselves in decency and dignity. We have been told repeatedly by government spokesmen that once price controls were removed, prices would level off and adjust themselves. Further we have been told repeatedly by our friends to the right, members of the Progressive Conservative party, that once decontrol was put into effect, increased production would bring about reductions in prices.
The effectiveness of control measures is well illustrated by the government's own figures. During the war, under controls the cost of living index rose only about five

points. Since April of 1946, when controls were removed, the cost of living index shot up from 120.8 to 173 or thereabouts. We have been agitating the adoption of a control policy in this house since 1946. What is the state of public opinion at this time? I do not think there is any question about it. On October 7 the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion released the results of a survey on what people in Canada thought of price control. The question they asked was: "As things are right now, do you think we should have price controls again, or do you think the government should not interfere in prices?" On the basis of the answers they received, this is their estimate of how the people of Canada feel on the subject:
Should have price control	 75 per cent
Should not have price control	 14 per cent
Qualified	 7 per cent
No opinion	 4 per cent
No doubt that majority opinion has been increased owing to the rapid increase in prices since the date of that public opinion poll. In addition to that, we have the four large labour bodies, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, and the dominion legislative committee of the railway transportation brotherhoods, meeting in conference in Ottawa on January 3,	1950, and outlining labour's
demand for the imposition of price controls. We welcome the campaign that is being waged in this country by the labour organizations. We welcome their support and co-operation in this most important matter. In addition to the major labour organizations, there are other labour organizations throughout this country which are expressing their views in exactly the same way.
As I said before, the farmers of this country want parity prices. If the farmers are to have parity prices, we must have some general regulation over our economy. We must have a system of price controls that will ensure satisfactory prices to consumers. We must have a system of price controls and subsidies that will assure satisfactory payments to agricultural producers.
The Saskatchewan Farmers Union and the Alberta Farmers Union met on September 25 last with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and the chairman of the wheat board and urged price controls on all goods, services, and rents, including the prices of agricultural products. I know that the farmers in my own constituency heartily endorse our appeals for price control. They are suffering from the increased cost of fertilizers, sprays, boxes, wrapping paper and all those
The Address-Mr. Herridge things that are necessary to place fruit and other commodities on the market. They are heartily in favour of the reimposition of price controls and necessary subsidies.
Some interesting developments have taken place in recent months. Lately I received a letter from the city council of Nelson, one of the larger cities in my constituency, urging that I ask the government in the House of Commons to reimpose price controls. These men are in close touch with the people whom they represent. It is true that in 1946 some of them were in favour of decontrol, in the belief that that would- lower prices and free the economy. They were acting according to their best judgment, but today they realize that because of the unstable nature of prices and our whole economic structure, some form of regulation is necessary. I repeat that I have been asked by that city council to urge the reimposition of price controls.
We all know the attitude of members of the Canadian Legion. They have heartily supported the reimposition of price controls in order to protect the living standards of the working people. In addition to that, along with other hon. members I have received hundreds of letters, cards and other communications since coming to Ottawa urging support for price and rent controls.
I remember from my reading of history that Marie Antoinette, when she was informed that the people could not afford to buy bread, said, "Let them eat cake". Surely the government is not treating this important matter of bread, in the sense that bread is the lifeblood of the people, in the superficial way in which Marie Antoinette treated it. If there is any truth in the statement that history repeats itself I would direct the attention of members of the cabinet to the fact that Marie Antoinette lost her head.
The value of price control legislation has been proved by experience. The need for price control legislation is obvious and urgent. The demand for price control legislation without question is overwhelming. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight):
That the following words be added to the amendment, immediately after the words "rising cost of living" in the last line thereof:
"such as the immediate reimposition of price controls, and the payment of subsidies where necessary, so as to protect the health and living standards of the Canadian people."
In order to make clear the effect of this subamendment I shall read in full the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition
158	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge (Mr. Drew), and then add to it the subamendment 1 have just moved. The amendment as amended will read:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed
(1)	to give this nation leadership in the face of the present great danger; and
(2)	to bring into being forces necessary to enable Canada to defend itself and discharge its international obligations; and
(3)	to take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living, such as the immediate reimposition of price controls, and the payment of subsidies where necessary, so as to protect the health and living standards of the Canadian people.
I have just one more point to make before sitting down. I should like to indicate to hon. members the situation that prevails in Canada and in other countries. I have heard members of the government party say that we in Canada are a lot better off than most other people so far as increases in the cost of living are concerned. I have heard that argument many times, and I should like to present some figures to indicate how prices have risen in ten countries since 1945. The sources of this information are the Canadian Statistical Review, United Kingdom Ministry of Labour Gazette and the International Labour Review for July, 1950. The cost of living index is taken to equal 100 as of 1945, and on that basis we have the following
result:
France	  484
Canada	 137
Australia	  136
Netherlands	 135
United States	 131
New Zealand	 119
United Kingdom	 114
Sweden	   112
Denmark	 110
Norway	   107
With all our enormous productive capacity, with our great wealth of natural resources, with the ability of our people, with our industrial technique, the fact remains that Canada has had the second highest increase in the cost of living of the ten countries referred to. I think we can do better than that. This government should take advantage of its powers, should take advantage of the experience of legislation in previous years and reimpose price control legislation.
In conclusion I ask hon, members, when voting on this subamendment, to think first of the mothers with children to feed and clothe; second of the young married couples trying to establish homes; third, of the old age pensioners attempting to survive under an avalanche of rising costs and, fourth, of the large numbers living on fixed incomes. I ask members of the house to recognize, on this question at least, the wishes of the great majority of the Canadian people by voting for this amendment, and in so doing to
TMr. Herridge.]

demonstrate that on this occasion the House of Commons reflects the will of the Canadian people.


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to refer to the bereavement suffered last evening by our colleague, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the death of his wife. She was prominent in the group of ladies who annually came here, and she will be sorely missed by all who are associated with the Canadian parliament. I understand that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is going west on Friday, and I hope he will convey to her family the regret that is felt by every member of the House of Commons.
I want to express my congratulations-and this is no perfunctory duty-to the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. My memory remains sufficiently vivid of the occasion when, in association with my colleague, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), this duty fell upon us. I have told many of my friends that I found it the most difficult thing I had ever done. In our country there has been a most successful development by reason of the competitive political party system. It has done a good job for us, and I was particularly delighted with the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the motion now before the house, because they were both good Liberal speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Arthur Laing: To my good friends who interrupt may I say that I do not think that there was ever a more important time than the present for political parties to hold to and express themselves along the lines of the faith which they have built up in their parties.
In the debate thus far there has been a good deal of emphasis on defence. In the great speech made last night by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) he intimated that there were many domestic matters which would attract the attention of the commoners, and 1 thoroughly agree with him. I should like to deal with one or two of them today. With all the attention that the ministry is paying to the battles in Korea and those that may occur elsewhere, I hope they will give considerable attention to the battles that are going on in Canadian kitchens every day.
At the same time-and I do not think I need to counsel the ministry in this regard- I hope they will not pay too much attention

to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I think we should be hesitant about jumping into a series of cures that might be immeasurably worse than the disease, and that might well happen if the proposals the hon. member has put before the house were implemented. I have canvassed the people of my riding very thoroughly, and none of them want controls unless they do not apply to them. I think that is the situation pretty well all across Canada. If under the present circumstances we were to compound the controls that we had in the last war, the effects of some of which are still apparent in the country, with another full and complete set of controls, I think it could well be the end of enterprise in Canada. The more we read of the continuing calamitous conditions in countries where socialism has held sway over a period of years, the more apparent it is that it is vitally important to retain enterprise.
Canada has been extremely fortunate in recent years in its ministers of finance. We have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) who need take second place to none in all the western democracies today. I sincerely hope and expect that, when he brings down the budget, in addition to going after the revenue which he will require, he will not be unmindful of the living standards of the people, particularly those in the lower income brackets.
I was especially delighted with the offer as to old age pensions made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he met the representatives of the provinces. I had the great honour of being a member of the old age security committee of the house. I was extremely proud of the work done by it-and not merely because I was a member; they probably did an excellent job in spite of that. Their report was unanimous, and it was accepted with a degree of unanimity that has not accompanied many reports made to the House of Commons by those who would be the recipients as well as those who would have to do the paying. I devoutly hope that the offer which the Prime Minister made to the provinces will be accepted by them, but if it is necessary to review the situation along the lines of a suitable amendment to our constitution I hope that the ministry will do so.
Inevitably in these affairs we get down to a discussion of whether we can afford guns or butter. In our difficult and complex economy I think that is an oversimplification of the argument, but if we have to discuss it on that basis I would say that we on our side of the world will have half defeated communism when we can display to the
The Address-Mr. Laing world that the fantastic production of free men can provide more of guns and butter than any slave state at any time.
I am going to address the remainder of my remarks today to one of our comparatively new departments, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. This is the first opportunity I have had in the house to extend my congratulations to the minister. I believe his was a very popular appointment. If at that time the Prime Minister had not chosen to exercise his prerogative of calling the minister to wider councils but had left it to a ballot of members in all parts of the house, then I am sure the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) would still be the minister.
The nineteenth century was the century of migration; people were moving from one part of the world to another. In that century no fewer than seventy-eight million people moved from Europe to the new world. What causes people to uproot themselves and go to another country I know not. Perhaps the European peasants did not want to emulate their fathers; perhaps it was the hope of financial improvement; perhaps it was a desire to enjoy new freedoms that were denied in the old country. In the main, however, I think it was the desire to go to a vast, new, and, they h'oped, wonderful country.
Things are not so easy today so far as immigration is concerned; people cannot move about so readily. We find most of the nations of the world determined as far as possible to retain their own people. We have financial difficulties that were never encountered in the past. Seemingly every possible obstacle is put in the way of the easy movement of people from one country to another. Since the inauguration of this department we have done a positive 'and very good job so far as immigration is concerned. I am not going to offer any suggestions to the minister, because in the main I think he has done a magnificent job in getting our immigration department under way; but we may well ask what are the sources from which we seek immigration. Well, I do not think we can do better than get it from the sources which created the present population of Canada, because up to the present we have done a pretty good job, as is proved by the nation as it stands today.
I should like to address myself more directly to the fundamentals of the entire problem, and I am going to be as frank as I can in pointing out some of the opposition that exists within our own country. I am quite confident that if I were to ask the individual members of this house, "Are you in favour of immigration?" they would say yes. If I were to go to the people outside this house most of them would say of course they were in favour of
160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Laing immigration. But I have spoken to responsible labour leaders who say, "Well, you should not bring in too many people, or you will break down wage rates in Canada." I have spoken to industrialists in my province who do not want too many industrialists brought in from other countries because some of them do not like the competition. I have spoken to members of the professions, and some of them say, "Well, we had better go easy in this matter; we do not want too many brought in"-again a matter of competition. I have spoken to some small businessmen, and to be absolutely frank they have said, "Sure, bring in people, but don't bring in any Jews."
If we are to have an immigration policy hedged about with all these qualifications, Mr. Speaker, we shall have no policy at all. We find the odd individual who says, "Oh, yes; it is all right if you bring a man from Nijmegen in Holland and put him in Gravel-bourg, Saskatchewan, but don't bring him near me." I believe we have to widen our viewpoint as to the advantages of immigration, and we have to widen our viewpoint in regard to our acceptance of the people whom we are bringing here. In my own province I have seen the magnificent work being done by some of the religious organizations with the people coming to this country. I believe our own department could do a better job than it is doing at the present time. It is all right to meet people at the train, but I think we should organize in such a way that we visit them on their farms, or in their little businesses, or at their homes, six months, nine months and twelve months after they have arrived.
Now let me say a word or two concerning the new policy in respect to the oriental races. I believe in our province the Chinese and Indians would be the first to admit that we cannot open the doors wide. We have opened the doors somewhat in respect to Chinese. I think I know as many Chinese in British Columbia as anyone else in that province. Throughout every campaign during the war, whether it was selling bonds, for the Red Cross or anything else, one group had its job done the very first day of the campaign; that was the Chinese. I appreciate the effect of the new regulations in respect to these people, and I am sure they realize that the number admitted must be limited. I believe there are a few things wrong in Hong Kong, through which we steer them. At the present time they have no appeal from the decision of the board which meets them there. I have advised the minister that I am not so sure you can determine the age


of a person within five years by taking an X-ray of his bone structure over there and forwarding it to Ottawa for review.
These are small things. My point is that we are bringing some of those people into our country. I was delighted to learn the other day that we are to bring in annually 150 citizens of our great sister dominion India. I was only a youth at the time, but I vividly remember the incident which occurred in 1913 in Vancouver in connection with the Komagata Maru, having to do with citizens of that country. Perhaps this will help make amends for what at that time was considered by the people and government of India to be a great wrong. With so many people to choose from, I warn the minister that we shall expect him to get the very best when he brings in those 150 annually.
There has been some discussion and criticism of statements attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), by people who have asked, "Are we going too far in order to avoid war?" I hope this country always is headed by a prime minister who will do anything compatible with national honour and the safety of this nation to avoid war. Only the other day I was reading a book, entitled "The Aftermath", written by Winston Churchill in 1926. It is a review of the devastation of the first war, not the second war. As you will recall, he pointed out that all the knowledge of the medical world was brought to bear to return men again and again to the shambles. There are men in this house today who will have a vivid recollection of what I am talking about when I bring up those words of Mr. Churchill. He finally said that nothing was wasted that could conceivably contribute to waste.
Let us look at it from a more shrewdly practical angle. We may assume that the other western democracies are spending like sums, in relation to their total ability to spend, as we are in Canada. With the prodigious sum indicated to us the other night, I would think that if there were one thing we would wish less than a war at any time it would be a war now. I was particularly delighted, and with this observation I am going to close, with the statement made by the Prime Minister not very long ago. He said:
We want to act in such a manner that the other nations will not look down upon us, and we shall not look down upon them.
I think there is in that observation a great sermon for all of us, indeed much more than

a sermon. I think this is a statement of the faith of a government, a statement which promulgates to the rest of the world that in the eyes of Canadians there are no longer any inferior peoples.
I am going to suggest that we should have a live and active immigration policy. There should be a statement from the people of Canada that we will welcome immigrants to this country of opportunity as long as they are good citizens when they come here. I am very serious about this. I believe it constitutes today one of the greatest weapons against international communism. I doubt very much if General Eisenhower's greatest problem in Europe is going to be the procurement of military materiel. I think his problem will be the difficulty of convincing the people of that continent of the measure of danger under which they live today, and to bring about a determination on their part to preserve their lives and retain their beliefs.
One of the greatest responsibilities we have here is, first of all, to know fully the nature of the enemy we are confronting and then to develop within ourselves a sense of responsibility, a sense of discipline-an appreciation of national backbone, if you like. If we do that, then I believe we shall have accomplished one of the most important jobs in repelling this world-wide threat which is facing the free nations today. I believe we are doing exceptionally well in Canada. One of the most important statements was that made by the Prime Minister in respect to other nations in the world, and other peoples, and I think we can reflect that statement in such a way that the other nations of the world will say, "Here is a country that is prepared to accept people on the basis of one qualification only, and that is human integrity and the preservation of human dignity." If we act in that way in this country we shall continue, as we have in recent years, to give leadership beyond the relative population in this country.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, as the deskmate of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) I should like to thank the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), who has just spoken, for his timely and very thoughtful remarks about the passing of Mrs. Diefenbaker. In this house the members of all parties form a large family circle. That is true to a degree quite unrealized by the Canadian public at large. In that family circle we not only come to know all the members, but also become acquainted with their wives and families. In my time here 80709-11
The Address-Mr. Green there has not been a more friendly, kindly, lovable soul than the late Edna Diefenbaker. She will be sorely missed by everyone in this chamber. I am quite sure that when our mutual friend the member for Lake Centre returns to resume his duties he will have the sympathetic understanding of all the members of the house. He has already made a great contribution to the public life of this country, but he has an even greater contribution to make in the future. I know that everyone will help him when he returns to this chamber.
I have been greatly impressed during the last few weeks by the degree to which the people of the city of Vancouver are worried over the situation in which they find themselves today. I have never known such a general feeling of concern in my home city. Probably other members of the house have found that same attitude prevailing in their respective ridings. I believe that this worry stems largely from the world situation, from the tragic and disturbing events which are taking place beyond our boundaries, but it is caused also by the rising cost of living and the fear of inflation. I believe that as never before our people, regardless of party, are looking to this parliament for some definite leadership to help them face these problems.
That is certainly true on the Pacific coast of Canada, possibly because there we look out to the Pacific and that great continent of Asia. For over seven months now a bitter war has been going on in Korea. Canadian warships have sailed from our ports. Hon. members will have noticed just this week reports of the return to Esquimalt of His Majesty's Canadian ship Sioux. That destroyer was welcomed by thousands of people upon her return to our shores. Canadian transport planes have been flying out from the airport at Vancouver across to Japan; Canadian and American personnel have been carried across the ocean in that way.
And today in Korea, perhaps going into action at this very moment, we have a western battalion, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry-the Princess Pats as we all know them; that regiment which was the first into battle in the first war; which has made a marvellous reputation since its formation in 1914. Several hundred men from British Columbia are serving in Korea with that regiment. Just a few miles away to the south of Vancouver we have the remainder of the special service force in the United States camp at Fort Lewis. Above all, we realize on Canada's Pacific slope that we are in the direct line of attack from
162	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green Siberia; that if this war should spread it is very likely that western Canada will be under enemy attack.
Therefore today, believing that the Canadian people are crying out for a definite plan of action, I make bold to offer several suggestions; but before doing so I intend to sketch briefly the broad background of the world situation, because we must always keep it in mind in deciding what steps should be taken by Canada.
The world is in its present condition because of the failure of Russia and her satellites to adopt a policy of co-operation at the end of the second great war; also by the activities of the communists in the free nations, for example, right here in Canada, and finally by the open aggression in Korea. These events have forced the free countries to the conclusion that the Soviet and its satellites aim at world domination; and have driven the free nations to a policy of being united, and also of being strong.
I think the situation is very accurately summed up in one of the paragraphs of the speech from the throne which reads as follows:
The increased menace in the Far East reinforces the mounting evidence that communist imperialism is determined to dominate the world by force or the fear of force, and that the only hope of maintaining peace with freedom lies in the rapid increase of the combined strength of the free nations. It is equally important that the free nations should make it abundantly clear that they have no aggressive designs1 and that they are resolved to aid in constructive endeavours to improve the standards of human welfare in underdeveloped countries.
In other words, the free nations are making themselves strong not to attack, not to start a third world war. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the free nations could not start a third world war if they wished to do so; because any leaders, here in Canada for example, who tried to advocate a policy of that kind would very quickly find that they had no support. Our hope of course is that Russian leaders, because of the strength of the free nations, will eventually come to see that the only policy for them to pursue is one of co-operation. At that time effective disarmament should be possible and the establishment of a world police force under the United Nations. May I point out that such a result will be far better for the free nations than any world war, because no matter who wins a third world war, all parties taking part in it will suffer terribly.
In any event the policy of the free nations today, including Canada, is to become strong and to continue strong until there is no longer a threat of war. That means continuing strong perhaps for years, perhaps for genera-


tions, perhaps'for the lifetime of everyone in this chamber today; and yet, during the whole of that time, facing the possibility of war overnight.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs put that possibility quite neatly the other day when he said, as reported at page 57 of Hansard:
I say now, that the free world is in the greatest possible danger.
That condition will continue. Such a policy is very difficult for Canada, perhaps the most difficult sort of policy we could undertake, because it means staying power, it means a lot of determination; and our experience with wars and preparation for war has been so completely different. In each of the world wars we were thrown in suddenly, we had to mobilize in a hurry. There was intense patriotic fervour, a great will to win, and the nation was able to develop a very strong war effort. Today we do not face that situation. We face an entirely different kind of problem. It is no wonder that the Canadian people are perplexed and are calling for leadership. So I come to my five suggestions.
First, we must not forget that there is a war to be won in Korea. There is fighting to be done there. If the broad policy adopted by the free nations is the proper policy and can be made to work, there will probably be no fighting anywhere else in the world but in Korea, and we all devoutly hope that such will be the case. However, there is still a war going on in Korea and it must be brought to an end.
The other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with that, too. He was referring to the Korean war, and described it as a diversionary and weakening struggle which should be brought to an end as soon as possible.
Let Canada step in and do her best to help end that war. She has not done her share, to date. This Korean war was started by an aggressor. We have called that aggressor North Korea; but there is little doubt in the mind of anyone that the real aggressor was Red China or, in any event, that she was associated with that aggression and had Soviet backing.
Action was taken by the United Nations to meet the aggression, and Canada was associated with such action. Canada authorized action to be taken to meet that aggression. It quickly became apparent that the key to the whole situation was the supplying of ground troops. I would remind hon. members that in the telegram from the Secretary General of the United Nations on July 14,

1950, there was an urgent appeal to Canada for ground forces. That message read in part as follows:
I have been advised that there is an urgent need for additional effective assistance. I should be grateful therefore if your government would examine its capacity to provide an increased volume of combat forces, particularly ground forces.
Canada sent out three destroyers and has provided certain air transport, both of which steps are to be commended. I believe the men who have manned the ships and who have flown the planes have rendered a wonderful service for Canada and the United Nations. Great credit is due also to the young men of this nation who have volunteered for the ground forces.
But there was delay. I do not intend to outline in detail the delays which took place. We do know however that there was delay after delay in respect to ground forces, while all the time Canada could have sent one of her regular battalions to Korea promptly. Eventually a brigade was raised for service in Korea, which became known across the country as the Korean brigade. The house met last summer and approved the dispatch of that brigade to Korea. An advance party was sent across the Pacific ocean; then the Princess Pats were sent over; but then the advance party, with the exception of that portion attached to the Princess Pats, was recalled; and recalled at a time when United Nations forces in Korea were suffering very heavy defeats and were being compelled to retreat.
These acts, these delays, these different actions have caused talk south of the border. The people in Vancouver frequently go across to the United States because the distance is short. They are being told by their American friends that it is hard to understand the attitude Canada has been taking in the Korean struggle.
I have before me an article which appeared in Fortune, one of the outstanding American publications, and from which I shall quote. This is the edition for November, 1950; and, under the heading, "Comfortable Canada", it says:
In part, Canada's latest burst of prosperity can be traced to a belief that the free world's postKorean rearmament will make heavy demands on Canada's raw materials, but need not make heavy demands of Canadians in taxes or manpower. In the bluntest terms, the question that arises is this: Is Canada doing her share?
There has been very little in the events of the last six months about which Canadians can be proud. The handling by the government of Canada's activities in the Korean crisis has been one of the most disgraceful
80709-UJ
The Address-Mr. Green episodes in Canada's history. Let us now do our share to finish this war in Korea. Let us send the other two battalions to Korea, with their supporting troops. Do not leave the Princess Pats to be the forgotten heroes of Canada.
There is a lesson in this for Canada, and it is that we must stand beside the United States when she is in trouble. I would be the first to insist that Canada must not become subservient to the United States in any respect; and I do not believe Americans want to have us subservient neighbours. But we must stand beside them when they are in trouble.
Let us look at the situation today. Because of the second world war, against her wishes the United States was thrown into world leadership. Americans did not want to be worried with the leadership of the world. Yet they took on that difficult job, and I think have handled it extremely well. They are a brave people, a proud people, an idealistic people, and a very friendly people. They are our friends. Over Korea Canada should have stood out as the friend of the United States. That would have been remembered for all time-because it is what one does when one's friends are in trouble that really counts. If a person or a nation cannot stand behind a friend in time of trouble-then that person or nation will never be-considered such a good friend in the future.
We had a great opportunity, but we failed1 to take advantage of it; and events in the-United Nations in the last week or two have-not helped. They have made that position: worse. All this quibbling and wavering with Canada hesitating, questioning and appearing to be dubious as to whether she should support the American resolution, and not opposing the Asian resolution, is not going to help our relationship with the United States. Yet, right today we expect Americans to defend us in the north. The minister says that if there were an attack in the north Canada could not defend herself, would have to have American help; we also expect them to defend us on the sea and in the air.
Let us remember what happened just a few years ago-in 1938-when at Kingston that great American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, made this statement about Canada:
The Dominion of Canada is part of the sisterhood of the British empire. I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire.
In 1940 he took the same attitude when the Ogdensburg agreement was negotiated and a joint permanent defence board for
164	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green North America set up; the same attitude was again adopted in connection with the Hyde Park declaration in 1941. I repeat that Canada should have been beside the United States in Korea. Fortunately there is still time for her to be there.
My second suggestion is to urge once more that Canada press for a Pacific defence pact, for a common policy by all friendly nations in the Pacific. Canada is vitally concerned in this, as has been shown by Korea. As I mentioned a few moments ago, if there is ever an invasion of this country it will come from Asia. We must consider also the possibilities of trade across the Pacific ocean which is of the utmost importance to this country.
Today the Pacific area is in a state of flux. We are still worrying about a fire that might start at the front door in Europe while we are letting the house burn down merrily at the back door in Asia. The Pacific area must be stabilized. A Japanese peace treaty is to be negotiated shortly and in this connection the United States are now considering favourably the setting up or negotiating of a Pacific defence pact. I have here a press dispatch dated January 22 which reads:
Pact on Pacific U.S. envoy's aim in Jap peace talk.
The biggest unsolved problem facing Ambassador John Foster Dulles on the eve of leaving for the Far East is how to meet the desire of such countries as Australia and New Zealand for security against a rebirth of aggressive Japanese militarism.
There has been some thought in the U.S. government here that the best solution might be a Pacific security pact, somewhat like the Atlantic pact.
I urge the minister again to have Canada press for a defence pact in the Pacific. Perhaps it could be done by extending the coverage of the North Atlantic pact or perhaps an entirely new pact should be negotiated. But something must be done. Mind you, I give the government credit for the aid that has been provided to southeast Asia under the Colombo plan and to countries under the plan to aid undeveloped countries. I was pleased to see in the speech from the throne the promise that such aid is to be continued during the next year. But a great deal remains to be done in the Pacific and it is vital that there be a defence pact covering that area.
My third suggestion is that action must be taken at once to strengthen Canada's reserve army. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) did not deal with the reserve army when he spoke the other night. In my view he painted only half the picture. He dealt with the active forces and said that he wrould be talking about the reserve army on some future occasion.

I propose to support the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), which I want to place on record again:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed
(1)	to give this nation leadership in the face of the present grave danger; and
(2)	to bring into being forces necessary to enable Canada to defend itself and discharge its international obligations; and
(3)	to take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, before participating in this debate I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the manner in which they performed a very arduous task and the credit they have brought upon themselves and the ridings they represent in the House of Commons. May I note also the visit of our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to England to attend the conference of commonwealth prime ministers. His wonderful participation, his most helpful suggestions and the way he dealt with the difficult problems submitted to that conference have earned for him our great admiration. The deliberations in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has taken part at the United Nations assembly, his splendid way of dealing with the most delicate questions and with a not too loyal opponent, his unending efforts, his great sense of justice as well as his gentlemanly attitude at the council table have undoubtedly brought him to the fore and wholly justify the esteem we all hold for him. The detailed and precise expose recently given in this house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) of the way Canada intends to co-operate with and help the North Atlantic nations in their common effort to wipe communism from the face of the globe gives us great hope for the future.
When very recently in the other place we heard the speech from the throne we received that message with mixed feelings of satisfaction and apprehension. It was indeed gratifying to be entrusted with a mandate by a free people in a free country, where it is possible for us as free men to debate in this house legislation we believe capable of providing a solution to the present situation, and to feel that in this way it is possible for us to co-operate in helping, we hope before long, a people now living under fear to express themselves through a free government of their own choice. But there was also, sir, a feeling of apprehension because of the seriousness of the task with which we are confronted and the grave responsibilities arising from it.

In order to implement our program of co-operation with the Atlantic charter nations we will be asked to authorize Canadian participation in the integrated force. Having the security of Canada in mind I am sure no hon. member of this house will oppose this policy of preparedness; and I am one of those who believe that if we are to fight the enemy it is preferable to do so away from our shores. In connection with this defence program I should like to remind the minister, in view of his speech a few days ago in which he offered all available facilities to the North Atlantic pact nations to train their air forces in our country, that in the riding of Prescott we have two large airports, at Pendleton and St. Eugene, which served the very same purpose during the last war under the commonwealth air training plan, but which unfortunately are now idle. We also have a landing field at Hawkesbury which at present is used by a private flying club. Just here I must say that this club has trained many efficient pilots, and I hope that in the very near future it may be possible to provide them with a beacon so they may go on with their night training.
So it will be seen that the riding of Prescott has much to offer in the matter of air training. Its ideal location between the capital city of Ottawa and the metropolis of Montreal undoubtedly constitutes a determining factor in bringing those airports into the tremendous air training plan which the minister intends to implement during the next three years. Therefore I strongly urge that immediate steps be taken to study the possibility of putting some of these airfields to use.
In the same speech from the throne we were told that we will be asked to approve substantially increased expenditures for defence. I am aware of the need for the expenditures, but I am sure that in his coming budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will not tax incomes too heavily. With the present costs of living I fear it would be disastrous if we were to ask too great a sacrifice of our people. There are other expedients, I am sure, to which we can have recourse to obtain the necessary money with which to put our defence program on a sound basis.
Now I come to price control, a subject of great interest to the members of the party immediately opposite me, that is, the C.C.F. I am at a loss to understand the subamendment proposed today by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and
The Address-Mr. Bruneau seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). That amendment reads:
That the following words be added to the amendment, immediately after the words "rising cost of living" in the last line thereof:
"such as the immediate reimposition of price controls, and the payment of subsidies where necessary, so as to protect the health and living standards of the Canadian people."
With regard to the hon. member who seconded the subamendment, there was an interesting article in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, dated January 23, 1951, entitled "Opposed to Price, Wage Freeze Now". It states:
R. R. Knight, member of parliament for Saskatoon, said on Thursday he opposed price and wage controls now. He said that to freeze prices and wages now would permit industry to continue to enjoy exorbitant profits. Mr. Knight addressed nineteen unionists representing the C.C.L., the T.L.C., and the Railway Brotherhoods in the Farmer-Labour Hall.
Workers should be free to bargain and whittle those profits down to size, he said. Wage controls would be sound in a war economy provided a proper relationship between prices and costs of production could be reached first.
That was about a fortnight ago, yet today the same hon. member seconds this subamendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely the hon. member knows that is not a correct report.


Raymond Bruneau: I am happy to note that
amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act are to be introduced to prevent the retention of Canadian citizenship by persons who have renounced their allegiance, or shown by their conduct that they are not loyal, to Canada. I am wholly of the opinion that such amendments are most important and urgent, since it is imperative that citizenship in a free country should not be shared by those who are endeavouring to destroy the very essence of our liberty. There should be a thorough screening of those suspected of subversive activity. Those who made the supreme sacrifice at Vimy during the first world war, on the shores of Dieppe during the second world war, and today in the hills of Korea, paid too great a price for the freedom of a free democratic country to allow saboteurs and communists at large to enjoy it.
Another cheerful feature of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General is the mention of the fact that the high level of employment and production within our country will give our people increased capacity to meet the demands of national security.
Before long I should like to see a bill introduced in this house granting a pension

The Address

Mr. Bruneau to invalids. Since my entry into politics in June, 1949, most of the cases that have been brought to my attention concern invalids. We owe it to those who cannot help themselves to bring them assistance. I am happy also to notice the mention of a contributory old age pensions program along the lines recommended by the joint committee at the last regular session, and that proposals to that effect were laid before the provincial governments for new tax agreements. Our old people will certainly rejoice at the thought that, during this session, legislation will be introduced concerning their welfare. There is not a single member in this house who will not do his utmost to see that the twilight of life is made a little more cheerful and bright for our aged citizens.
The spirit of unity so happily reflected in the conferences between the federal and provincial governments, which is an assurance that the program of social security will operate smoothly, we owe in a great measure to the masterly hand and tactfulness of our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
I hope that the amendments to be introduced to the Central Mortgage and Housing Act will make it possible for our people with meagre incomes to build a home which they will own and cherish.
Another measure which I should like to see introduced is one concerning the decentralization of industry. Should we be attacked from the air, and this is not an improbability, it would be preferable for our industry as a whole to be spread across the dominion rather than concentrated in two or three cities. In this way our productive capacity would not be impaired.
Let us hope that the report of the royal commission on the arts, letters, and sciences will become available during the course of this session. I add here, sir, that I intend to table a resolution regarding the introduction of a bill to create a youth department. This department would not overlap the provincial departments of education, as once alleged by the premier of Quebec during a press conference. This department would establish a vocational guidance school for our young people who have the ability but lack the money to develop their talents. On a national scale we could guide our young people in the liberal arts, sciences, the different fields of knowledge and agriculture, thus enabling us to find better trained citizens at home and avoid the necessity of importing skilled or specialized labour from abroad.


In conclusion, sir, it is most comforting for the legislators in this House of Commons to be able to debate as free men upon a legislative program prepared by a cabinet whose prime aim is to achieve security and prosperity for the people by whom they were given a mandate, and in this way to bring freedom to other people now living behind iron curtains.
(Translation):


Mr. Auguste Mallais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should be remiss in my duty if I failed to offer my wholehearted congratulations to the mover of the address in reply, (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) for the ideas they expressed in their speeches and the manner in which they acquitted themselves.
Mr. Speaker, although for the past decades our country has experienced an unprecedented development in the political, social and economic fields, the numerous and complicated problems that arise in the international sphere seem to baffle our leaders. Already we feel it deeply in our daily lives. However, unless those problems are solved quickly, they will jeopardize our way of life, our very existence as a nation, during the present generation and perhaps that of tomorrow.
Every Canadian citizen no doubt realizes the seriousness of the situation. The events unfolding before his eyes summon the ghastly spectre of a third world war.
Canada, however, does not want war, any more than other countries in the association of free nations. Yet rearmament is progressing; there is a sort of confusion, and the latest discussions of the United Nations all seem to lead to the same question: What will cause the spark that will ignite the powder keg?
Such is the present state of affairs and it seems that the Communists have no intention of ending their struggle for world domination.
Karl Marx introduced his doctrine about a hundred years ago and I remember having read in a certain manifesto: "A dream, the communist dream, is spreading over Europe." Now, a hundred years later, we have to admit that the dream has given way to tragic reality.
Russia is expressing the most brutal forms of that dream. Her treacherous doctrine, under the guise of a protective political system, of promised social reforms, of a utopian economic policy, implied the destruction of humanity's most sacred possession, the spiritual nature of man.

Considering the way of life of nations still living under freedom, a way of life mirrored in our religious beliefs, in our discerning liberties, in our democratic governments, how can we imagine that this global ideology, which affects all human activities and tends to spread by every possible means, by enslaving the minds of people and by armed force, will at any given time stop its victorious march against free countries dedicated to utterly opposite ideals?
At the present time, nobody can deny that the communist ideology is spreading at an alarming rate.
The bait tendered the world by Russia varies according to the quarry for which she is angling. At times, she resorts to the cry of the people, promising less fortunate masses equality and security as was done in some Asiatic countries, while at other times she pits the colonial spirit against alleged imperialism, as happened in Indo-China, for instance. Elsewhere, in pacifist countries, she uses peace crusades such as the one we witnessed in Canada not so long ago. Today, she denounces war profiteering capitalists, and so on. That is perhaps what prompted a great leader of industry, Mr. Rhys Sale, president of the Ford Company of Canada, to say: Communists depict leaders of trade and industry as greedy cowards who hide behind the firing-line while the workers, fathers and sons serve as cannon fodder.
Unfortunately, such appeals sometimes bear a faint resemblance to the truth; but that is not the whole truth. Today, how many peoples behind the iron curtain have bitterly tasted this false social security, this imaginary paradise that no one ever sees.
This cold war, which can hardly last much longer as such, seems to take a more concrete shape. Already we can see the Russian strategy seeking, on the one hand, the balance of power among the nations and, on the other hand, trying by vile propaganda to dominate the world by enslaving the minds. This thought was again expressed by Mr. Sale and I quote:
The rulers of the Kremlin believe they have perfected a technique that will enable them to rule the world. This technique is based on the principle that it is easier to enslave men by seizing their minds than by tying their hands.
Hungary, Roumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, North Korea and China have been the victims of this technique which is a more powerful weapon than the hydrogen bomb.
The Address-Mr. Maltais
This balance of power I just spoke of is at stake in various places. Europe, exhausted by two wars and faced with enormous problems, barely has the strength to recover. Nobody can deny that potential resources of the free part of Europe could help communist Russia tremendously.
We know, too, that China, Russia's ally in any world war, would become an important factor, fraught with the gravest consequences for the United Nations. On the other hand, Asia remains a very vulnerable point.
Such are, in my opinion, the factors at work in the balance of power. The North Atlantic treaty nations will, we believe, stand firm and, with the immense assistance they will receive from other countries, the peoples concerned will be able to present a solid enough front to deter aggression.
On the other hand, we cannot say as much of the Chinese people. The disastrous Korean war has added to difficulties which already existed.
Knowing that a Russo-Chinese alliance would constitute, in the event of war, an extremely powerful association of forces, I hope that the United Nations will find a way to prevent war with this satellite country. Though we must not seek peace at any price, thus jeopardizing our national security, no door must remain closed, no stone left unturned by the United Nations in order to solve this situation by peaceful means.
I need not remind this house once more of the sane and cautious attitude of the government in seeking a solution to this problem.
The speech from the throne refers to the Colombo plan in connection with the underprivileged populations of Asia. Some time ago I read in the press a statement from India's prime minister, Mr. Nehru, to the effect that the struggle for supremacy between Russian communism and the free nations' democratic system will not be determined by war, but by what those systems have to offer.
That statement is very true. Armed conflict has seldom led to lasting solutions. The war that broke out in 1914 was meant to destroy German imperialism for ever. Twenty years later, the same German imperialism caused another war, because we were then called upon to defend Poland. I need not ask you how long Poland enjoyed freedom.
170

The Address-Mr. Maltais
But Mr. Speaker, before discussing further the issue of this cold war between Christian countries and the forces of evil, I pause a moment to examine the position of Canada in the face of the international situation..
Following the speech from the throne and the brilliant statement of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), the attention of all Canadians should centre on our defence. Since we intend to spend some $5 billion for defence, it is obvious that Canada will shortly be on a war footing.
Canada's population is only about 14 million and she is barely recovering from the dire effects of another war. Any honest Canadian will admit that our contribution to our common defence is second to that of no other country. However, I wish to draw the attention of the government to the dangers entailed by such a large scale effort. As a result of the program which is under way, a shortage of manpower is already predicted for the summer of 1951. By recruiting volunteers, the army will absorb a large proportion of our youth and war industries, an ever-increasing number of workers. Our economy has already been disturbingly jolted. The cost of living is skyrocketing and the slightest increase in prices would so upset the balance of many a family budget that our war effort might be seriously impaired.
Conscription of manpower under present conditions would be harmful to our economy and to the free effort of the nation, to the defence of our country and to the help we must give our allies, but uncontrolled inflation would risk slowing down the steps taken to preserve our liberty in the face of the communist peril.
Some time ago, General Eisenhower said: (Text):
A nation's defence must spring from its own soul, and the soul cannot be imported.
Owing to the wise administration of the present government, Mr. Speaker, and the prudent measures which have been laid down so far in this house, the soul of the nation today looks to its leaders with confidence.
The Canadian nation has historically inherited me civilization of two great races: the Anglo-Saxon civilization that I have learned to like, the Latin civilization that I love. The Canadian nation, I daresay, has moral values that it is determined to keep and defend.
Canadian unity is a fact in this country and over the years our forefathers had to

fight and make great sacrifices in order that we might enjoy today the heritage of which we are so proud.
If sometimes, owing to the diversity of our culture and our languages, it has been onerous for us all, we have, nevertheless, learned to know one another better and to respect each other. Let us thank Providence that through all those years we have acquired above all in this land of ours the right to be called Christian Canadians and democrats forming a nation with a soul conscious of its values and of its responsibilities.
This nation has a soul and a history, young maybe, but I hope from the bottom of my heart that the government will soon consider giving to the people of Canada an emblem which will symbolize in our public places, and in foreign lands, the reason why we are proud to be Canadians and united in the defence of this country-a national flag.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in entering the debate at this time is this:	a few moments ago, not in
my hearing but in the hearing of hon. members in the house, the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bruneau) assumed, and stated -and from the evidence he had in his hand I do not blame him for so stating-that I had at a certain meeting, where I met certain members of trade unions in Saskatoon, namely on the night before I caught the train to come to Ottawa, made certain statements. His statement was that I am reported in the Star-Phoenix as having said that I was opposed to the freezing of wages and prices now.
The hon. member has been most friendly about it, and has shown me the clipping. While I have found that, generally speaking, the reporters serving my home-town paper, the Star-Phoenix of Saskatoon, are very accurate, this is one occasion where they made a most distinct error. I did notice at the meeting at which I spoke that the young lad who had been sent to report the meeting was just that. He was a young lad; and I did hope that, in the light of the somewhat technical manner in which I discussed the subject, he would get the facts straight.
Until today I had neglected to renew my usual request that the Star-Phoenix be supplied to me here. The result is that I have had no opportunity to see that newspaper. I could have seen it of course if I had gone down to the reading room; but I did not do so. The result is that its being brought to my attention by the hon. member for Prescott was the first intimation, with one exception, concerning the mistake that had been made. One

of the people who, of late, have been sending us cards in regard to price controls-and some of these are friends of mine-wrote to me telling me about this mistake in the Star-Phoenix. I have on my desk the copy of the letter in that regard.
Let me add that at that meeting were represented I believe every trade and industry in Saskatoon, including the two great labour congresses, the packing-house workers and others. People from nearly all the trade unions in Saskatoon were represented. There was not one of the thirty or so men who met me who had any doubt whatever as to where I stand in the matter of price controls.
I spoke for forty minutes at the meeting, and I spoke in favour of price controls-just as I had spoken to forty-two meetings in various parts of this country during the last month or two, and spoken in favour of price controls. Many of those meetings were in the maritime provinces. I think therefore that I am thoroughly on record as to where I stand in respect of the control of prices. I am in favour of price control-and now. What I have said ought to straighten the matter out, so far as the house is concerned.
Then, so far as the hon. member for Prescott and the Star-Phoenix are concerned, I shall have something further to say. I have the highest regard for the Star-Phoenix, as a good newspaper. May I say in all kindness to the hon. member for Prescott that I do not see how he could have sat in the house since he was elected, whatever the date may have been

a year or two ago, I believe- and have listened to me speak in debate, along with other members of the group with which I am associated, and then in all sincerity accuse me of ever having made a speech of this sort. That I cannot fathom.
I am prepared however to give him the benefit of the doubt. I will not say that someone in his own party supplied him with a juicy item which purported to show that I, who only today seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in favour of price controls, had within the last two weeks addressed a meeting of trade union members in Saskatoon at which I had opposed the same thing.
I believe, sir, that I have made myself clear. As a matter of fact, I have penned a letter to the Star-Phoenix over my own name protesting this quotation. Then, in case hon. members are curious as to what I did say, may I offer an explanation? I said-and I would ask hon. members to listen carefully; my Liberal friends opposite would perhaps like to quote it to me on some other occasion -that "if you at this moment combine"-and note the word "combine"-"wage and price 80709-12j
The Address-Mr. Knight controls, and put them both now into effect that, in the present disparity which exists, that would be unfair and unthinkable, and would make permanent the high scale of profits now being enjoyed."
As I have said, there was no doubt in the minds of all those trade unionists as to where I stood. We met there in a meeting held in favour of price controls, and I said to them what I have said to the house now.
I am sure now that the hon. member for Prescott will accept my assurance that I never at any time opposed price controls either in the house or out of it. Since I have become tantalized to the point where I have to make a speech, I shall proceed to put myself on record by giving some of the reasons why I believe price controls would be a good thing for this country, and why I think the lack of such controls bears heavily upon many people in Canada.
In the first place there is a demand for price controls from all parts of the country. I need not say here that the cost of living index has risen rapidly. Taking a base of 100 for 1939, we find that it has crept up to about the 170 mark. This simply means that anyone wishing to buy goods now must take $1.70 with which to purchase goods which would have cost $1 in 1939. That, may I say, is the figure for the general price index. That index covers commodities such as carpets, organs, electric refrigerators, and other items which are comparative luxuries for many people.
What is the price index for food? The last time I saw it the figure was 218. What does that mean to the people of Canada? What does it mean to the housewives? It means this, that when you or your wife go down town you must take $2.18 to buy that which formerly cost $1. One does not need a very large pocket in his overcoat to be able to carry home with him $2.18 worth of groceries.
That is what I have to say about price controls. It is not too bad for you and for me. It is not too bad for the man whose wages have been increased to a comparatively decent level; but it plays havoc with the old people in our country. How would you like to be living in a garret, as I saw people living in garrets in the slums of Saint John. I wish the hon. member from that city were here so that he could hear me say it. People were living there like rats-old people living up in third-storey garrets, with only $40 to spend in a month. Those people are not buying goods rated in the 170 price index; they are buying only one thing, food-and not too much of that.
After having seen those things, if I could come back here, stand in my place in the

The Address-Mr. Knowles house and say I was not in favour of price controls, under present conditions, then I would have, like many other members in this house must have, something pretty deadly on my conscience.
That is my stand on price controls. I could go on of course to deal in more detail with the matter. I did not know that I was going to make a speech when I came down here and found that the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bruneau) had made the statement he had. If there is any question in anyone's mind in regard to my attitude on this matter, that question has now been answered. I do not think I have a reputation for inconsistency in this house or outside. I say the things that I believe. I do not pussyfoot. I do not change my mind after a couple of weeks as the hon. member has suggested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) and to urge this house to vote for that amendment, asking as it does for the immediate reimposition of price controls. If some of my friends on the other side of the house feel that for some reason- merely because they feel they have to support the government-they cannot do so, I hope that all hon. members on this side of the house will support it and that there will be a few Liberals independent enough to express what I am sure they know are the views of the people of this country.
Before I go further into that may I say that inevitably a good deal of the discussion during this debate has been with reference to the international situation. That matter has been well covered by the leader of this group and by other hon. members so I do not need to elaborate further. I should simply like to say that in my view the Canadian people, now as always, can be counted on to measure up to any challenge with which they may be confronted, but I think it is also the case-and this is the point we have been trying to press upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the government as a whole-that the Canadian people want their leaders to take every possible step, consistent with honour and basic principles, to avoid getting involved in war. If war comes, that is another story; the people of this country will meet that challenge if they have to; but first of all they want their leaders to do their best to avoid our getting into a general war, the extent of which could not but be catastrophic.


Other members of this group, including the hon. member for Saskatoon who has just resumed his seat, have endeavoured to impress upon the house and the government the seriousness of this problem of rising prices and inflation. Various answers have been given by the government as to why they are not prepared to embark upon a program of price controls. One of the reasons put forward is that to do so would put the government and the officials of various departments up against very difficult problems in connection with administration, enforcement and so on.
Let it be said right away that no one denies that there are difficulties involved in administering and enforcing a program of price controls. But we ask the government to set against the difficulties that they would have to deal with, and which are not insurmountable, the much greater difficulties that are facing the Canadian people from coast to coast. In almost every home in this country the problem of making both ends meet is becoming an impossible one, carrying with it a terrible sense of frustration. Surely the Canadian people have the right to expect their government and their parliament to take steps to help to alleviate that serious difficulty.
The argument that there are difficulties in the way comes with particular ill grace from the Canadian government in view of the proud boast that they have made, a boast they were justified in making, about the good job that they did in the field of price controls during world war II. I strongly urge that that argument be dropped and that the government face up to the problems confronting our people and bring in a program of price controls, and subsidies if necessary, with the least possible delay.
The hon. member for Saskatoon just referred to the fact that the cost of living index, which now stands at 172-5, is the over-all index and does not give the picture so far as individual items are concerned. He indicated that the last figure he had for the food index was 218. I telephoned the dominion bureau of statistics about two o'clock today to inquire as to the present food index and was told that the last figure they had was 220-2. In other words, the cost of food, already sky high, is still rising. We simply cannot get away from what this means in terms of difficulties and problems, in terms of lowered health and living standards for our Canadian people.
I had something to say during the session last fall about this, with particular reference to our old age pensioners. On that occasion I took some time in an attempt to turn the

The Address-Mr. Knowles
cost of living index as it was then into dollars in order to indicate the dollar value of the money we are now paying old age pensioners in terms of the 1935-39 dollar. I even prognosticated1 as to what might happen in the event of the cost of living index going over 170 by the time we got back here in January. 1 regret to say that my prediction was correct because the cost of living index has gone up past that mark and is still rising.
The result is that in terms of the over-all figure, let alone the special figure for food which is the most important one to our old age pensioners, the $40 maximum old age pension now being paid under federal legislation is worth only about $23 in terms of the 1935-39 dollar value. When you consider that the first Old Age Pensions Act provided a pension of $20 and that we are paying now only $23 in terms of the 1935-39 dollar value, surely it is time we did something for these despised and forgotten elder citizens of this country.
If you consider the food index of 220-2 and figure out how much of an old age pension is spent on food you will realize that we are probably giving our old age pensioners today less in the goods and services that they must purchase than was the case with the original pension. I want to say something more about this subject in a moment but at this juncture I simply refer to our old age pensioners as being one group who feel most stringently the effect of a rising cost of living, which seems to be in danger of continuing to rise until it gets completely out of sight.
The government tells us what other measures it proposes to rely on, such as its general fiscal policy. We are told that the government is going to wait and see what happens as a result of the controls being introduced in the United States. All these pronouncements are no help to our people. Pronouncements and theories do not help. What they want is the kind of legislation which this government demonstrated during the last war it could administer, and which it could bring in now to protect the health and living standards of our Canadian people.
I know that every once in a while when we press for price control someone raises the question of wage control. It has already been said in reply to that question, and correctly so, that we have a form of wage control right now. Remember that a great many workers of this country have their wages determined by collective bargaining. When a collective agreement is arrived at it must hold for a minimum of one year, and in some cases the term of the agreement is even longer. During that period of time wages are fixed, wages are
frozen, but prices continue to go up month by month putting our workers in an impossible position.
In fact I will draw it to your attention that this very House of Commons passed a wage freezing measure last fall when we were dealing with the railway strike. We passed a measure which fixed a ceiling beyond which the arbitrator of the railway dispute could not go. I should not say "we". Parliament passed it. I opposed it and so did all members of this group, but Bill 1 of last session fixed a ceiling of 7 cents beyond which the arbitrator could not go in adjusting the wages of the railway workers. It also fixed a floor of 4 cents below which he could not go, but that turned out to have no significance.
I wonder how many members of the house are aware of the fact that when Mr. Justice Kellock made his report and awarded 7 cents, for which the hon. member over here was expressing appreciation last night, he said in the report that if it had not been for the ceiling fixed by Bill 1 consideration would have had to be given to the possibility of awarding the workers 10 cents. Why did he say that? Because the agreement was to run for two years, and inevitably in that two-year period the increase in the cost of living would cut out the value of the increase that the arbitrator was awarding to them.
There is a case of a great band of workers who had their wages frozen by an act of parliament last fall for a two-year period, and yet we have members of the house unwilling to consider price controls to protect the standard of living given to those railway workers by the bill passed by this parliament, I submit the time has come when some members have got to get over just sticking to a position because that position is one that has been taken. We have got to face this matter and deal with it on its merits.
I am glad to note that our friends of the Progressive Conservative party are now supporting measures to combat inflation and the rising cost of living. I hope they will support our amendment which specifies one particular effective measure of doing that very thing. I cannot help but remember occasions in 1945, 1946 and 1947, during the parliament that was elected in 1945, when the government was getting rid of controls, we of this group were trying to have price controls retained, and our friends of the Progressive Conservative party were trying to get the government to get rid of controls even faster than the government was doing it. They have something on their conscience but I shall not berate them too much about it now. I am glad to see that they want parliament and the government
174	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles to do something about the rising cost of living, and I hope there are a few Liberals at least who will also represent faithfully the views of their people back home.
Just in passing, because I have referred to the Kellock report, I want to say how disappointed I was that that award discriminated between the railway workers on the one hand and the hotel and water transport workers on the other hand. Some hon. members may recall that last fall, when that matter was under discussion, I tangled with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) about it. I was not satisfied with the wording in the bill but the Prime Minister assured me and the house that it was the intention of the government and of parliament that no group of workers should be asked to accept any legislation that would discriminate between one group and another.
The workers thought that meant that any award would apply across the board to all those involved in the dispute, but when Mr. Justice Kellock, who has shown his readiness to deal most fairly with the whole situation, read the terms of the act he did not find it that way. He found it necessary to make a different award giving a lesser increase of only 4 cents an hour, a different term of contract, and other differences to the hotel and water transport workers, to their disadvantage. The other day when I asked the Prime Minister about this matter I was sorry that he passed the buck to parliament. After all, the bill that parliament passed last fall was the bill that the government brought in, and it was passed, so far as this phase of the matter was concerned, on the assurance given by the Prime Minister on the floor of the house.
The hotel and water transport workers are deeply disappointed that they were not given the same award given to other workers involved in the dispute. There again it was a case where this parliament, by a bill that was enacted here, actually took the step of freezing the wages of certain workers at a certain level. If we can do that, if members of the house apart from this group have it on their conscience, as they ought to, that they did that job of wage freezing, the time has come when they should support the move for price controls to protect the health and living standards of the Canadian people.
I turn now to another subject to which I have already made passing reference, namely, the question of implementing the report of last year's committee on old age security. I noted that when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) spoke today he was not very hopeful that we would get such legislation this year. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. 

Laing) on the other side of the house seemed to be a little more optimistic. I dare to hope that we will get that legislation this year. In fact, we must. One of the reasons that I hope for it is because of the reception that the house and the government gave to our report when the committee brought it in last year. Another reason is because of the terrific pressure for such action throughout the country. Another reason why I think it may be coming this year is because surely the government realizes that if it delays much longer the $40 a month plan is not going to be acceptable, is not going to be good enough. As a matter of fact time has already run out when that report seems as satisfactory as it did last June.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government is not delaying at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another reason why I am
hopeful that we are going to get action this year is because of what the Prime Minister said to me on February 5 in reply to a question which I put to him on the orders of the day, as recorded in Hansard on page 72. I am sure the reason for my question was quite clear. The speech from the throne says that amendments to the constitution relating to old age pensions may require to be laid before us at this session of parliament if the provinces agree to those amendments. So far so good. Personally I am not convinced that a constitutional amendment is necessary for the plan we recommended last year but if the authorities think we have to have a constitutional amendment let us get it and get on with the job of bringing in the legislation.
What worried me about the speech from the throne was that it stopped there. It said that the necessary constitutional amendments might be presented at this session. Well, we can get the constitutional amendments and go on home, and still not have the plan. We need one further step after the constitutional amendments have been enacted; that is, that the legislation implementing last year's recommendations be brought in. So I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this question, and I will read his reply as well:
In view of the apparent readiness of the provinces to agree to constitutional amendments in one form or another regarding old age pensions, will an effort be made, as soon as agreement has been obtained, to present those amendments to parliament in time so that legislation implementing last year's old age pensions recommendations may be enacted at this session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to confirm or to detract from the apparent optimism of the hon. member with respect to the readiness of the provincial governments to agree to constitutional amendments which would enable that to be dealt with.

As stated in the speech from the throne, the matter is before the provincial governments for their consideration, and it is and will be the policy of the government to avoid any possible delay when agreement has been reached to have that agreement implemented.
When I suggested that there was apparent readiness on the part of the provinces to agree to these amendments, I did so because I had read the correspondence between the government and the provinces tabled in this house on February 1 and included in an appendix to Hansard. That correspondence reads pretty well; I do not think anyone could feel any discouragement from any of those letters. The worst you find is one or two premiers saying the matter will be studied and considered. But in addition to that correspondence a number of legislatures have been called into session and speeches from the throne have been read. In every instance it has been indicated that the provincial government concerned proposes to bring in legislation or resolutions asking the authority of the legislature to agree to the whole plan under consideration. Well, Mr. Speaker, the provincial legislatures will all conclude their sessions and prorogue long before this session is finished; in fact a number of them will be through a couple of months from now or sooner. That means that six weeks or two months from now there is every likelihood that we will know whether or not the provinces do agree to the plan and to any constitutional amendments which may be necessary, and I am hopeful that they will agree, and that we will know it soon. I now have the Prime Minister's word, as I read it from page 72 of Hansard, that if and when that agreement is indicated there will be no delay in having it implemented.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if at the end of March or early in April we know that the provinces agree, there will be plenty of time before this session ends to take both steps, that is, to amend the constitution and then bring in legislation implementing the old age pension plan recommended to parliament last year by the committee. I strongly urge, in the words of the Prime Minister, that there be no unnecessary delay. I hope the provinces and the public generally will continue to press for speed in this matter, and that this legislation will not be put off until just before the next election, but that we will get it into effect this year.
As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and other members of the committee know, just as soon as this plan is put into effect some of us will start a campaign to have it improved, That $40 is not enough. That means test from 65 to 69 should not be there. But at the moment our
The Address-Mr. Knowles job is to get that plan, which has unanimous support, into effect, and none of us should say anything to jeopardize the success of that effort. On the other hand I ask the government to act in good faith and see to it that these constitutional amendments are not unnecessarily delayed, which could have the effect of putting off this necessary legislation until next session. The time for the old age pension legislation itself is as soon as possible, certainly at this session of parliament.
On the orders of the day this afternoon I put another question to a minister, this time to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I must say that his answer was at least forthright and categorical, even though not satisfactory. I asked him whether the government would consider setting up at this session of parliament a special committee similar to the committee of last year on old age security, to study and report on the whole question of health insurance for the Canadian people. As I say, I was sorry the minister found it necessary to say it was not the intention of the government to set up such a committee this session. I think it is fair to say that at the end of the sittings of the committee last year those of us who were members were pretty well agreed that a committee such as I asked for today would be a good idea. I am free to confess that when it was first proposed to set up an old age security committee last session I criticized the proposal as a delaying move. Well, we still have not had the legislation, which we should have had last year, but at least I will say that the committee did a good job. We collected a great deal of material; we publicized that material, and members of the House of Commons and the public generally are better educated on the subject of old age pensions because that committee met. Also as a result of the work of that committee there is hope that we will get this better legislation this year and from there we can fight on for something better still.
During the course of our discussions in that committee we frequently moved over into the field of health and time and again we faced the fact that something needed to be done in that field as well. So I say that at the end of our sittings there was pretty general agreement, even if it was informal and off the record, that at another session it would be a good idea to have a similar committee which would make a similarly exhaustive and worth-while study of the question of health insurance for our Canadian people. I hope the international situation is not being used by the government as an excuse for not setting up such a committee.

The Address-Mr. Knowles As a matter of fact I see the international situation as a reason for taking steps of this kind. If we are heading into any kind of international difficulty it will be all the more necessary to integrate and rationalize our health and medical set-up in this country, and all the more necessary to give our people an assurance of security in the field of health as well as the field of old age pensions.
The other day I was pleased when the new hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne, spoke from his own experience as a doctor and asked for health insurance because of the many cases he knew of where people had their life savings wiped out or their entire future mortgaged because of unexpected and heavy hospital or medical bills. This is something that really concerns a great many of our people and makes for a great deal of insecurity and unhappiness. This government and this parliament could do something about it, and I would hope that reconsideration will be given the proposal I put to the minister today in the form of a question, which unfortunately he answered in the negative. Let us at least have a committee, and get started at this important job.
There is just one other matter to which I should like to address a few remarks. Many of us were very disappointed with the announcement made the other day by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), when he indicated that the amount of the down payment on new houses under the National Housing Act was to be increased as from the day he made the announcement. We all know that in a time like this there are shortages and that because of those shortages, in steel products and other building materials, there may have to be some cutting back of building of one kind or another. But surely the course to follow is decide on the basis of what is needed, and first of all to decide as between business and recreational buildings and homes. Surely, when it comes to homes, the decision should be made as between high-priced homes and medium or lower priced homes which are needed by more of our people. Surely, some formula could have been worked out which would have conserved materials intelligently, and in such a way as to make materials available where they are most needed. But no; the government simply announces, through the Minister of Resources and Development, that it is going to attack this problem by increasing

the amount of the down payment, starting with the little fellow who can build a new house only if he can get a fairly substantial mortgage, particularly under today's high prices. Mr. Speaker, I do not like that kind of legislation. There is one word that fits it that members of this house do not like, but that is what it is. It is class legislation. It is not dealing with a serious problem in a reasonable and proper way, and I object most strenuously to it.
A day or so ago I happened to meet a friend of mine who is connected with the building of houses. It was just after that announcement, and I asked him what the effect would be. I went on to suggest to him that it might slow down the building of new homes. His reply was, "Slow it down? It will stop it altogether." The great mass of the people who need homes have to be able to raise a substantial mortgage in order to build a house at all. If that is the result, to cut back the building of homes at a time when rent controls are coming off, just look at the additional problems that will be thrown on the shoulders of our people. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that such actions do not coincide with the responsibility that the government of a country owes to its people.
It is true that our people are absorbed in the international problem. It is true the government is absorbed in that problem, and we would criticize them if they were not giving very close consideration to all that is involved in the world situation. But I strongly urge that they must not let their absorption with international affairs blind them to the necessity of dealing intelligently and fairly with problems at home. I most strongly urge that this house support the amendment which is now before it requesting the immediate reimposition of price controls. I urge that there be no delay in bringing in not only the constitutional amendments but legislation implementing at least the terms of last year's old age security plan. I urge reconsideration of the proposal for a committee on health insurance, and I hope that we will yet get a more intelligent way of dealing with shortages of building materials, because our people still need homes. Homes, health, and security are important all the time. It is particularly important that attention be paid to these things at this critical time in the history of our nation and our world.
On motion of Mr. Howe the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
*
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 8, 1951